Why the March for Science failed, as demonstrated by its own protest signs
Risk; Reason and Emotion

>>the growing and dangerous tendency of people to reject facts simply because they don’t like them.

I too am against this tendency whether it’s by ignorant lay people or ignorant scientists who believe that they know everything and reject other people’s alternative explanations.

>>Neil deGrasse Tyson: “I dream of a world where the truth is what shapes people’s [views of science] rather than [scientists] shaping what people think is true”.

A lot of scientific theories that we no longer accept as true, had evidence to support them. My conclusion is that evidence is a matter of interpretation but are being used to attack other people’s explanations.

>>all our perceptions are subjective, that all reasoning is motivated, that no matter how strong the evidence, we will see the facts as we choose to, as we need to, through the lenses of our feelings and experience and education and values and tribal identities.

I hope you’re including scientists in this assertion because it seems to be levelled at non-scientists. Scientists need to be more humble before they’re forced, by circumstance, to eat humble pies. The Higgs boson, and the Standard Model it’s contained in, is beginning to look false. The Higgs Mechanism will be seen as a Ptolemaic epicycle to make a false theory acceptable.

>>This is why the March for Science failed.

This reflects your pro-science stance and you forget what science means to others. I’m not against science per se; just the incorrect interpretation of so-called evidence, particularly experimental evidence that’s based on interpretation. Let me give you an example: In the beginning, the universe was full of energy; energy is made of packet of energy called photons; photons are massless because they don’t interact with the Higgs field. Therefore, the primordial energy is massless and yet all the mass of the universe came from this massless energy. This inconsistency of science makes it more ridiculous than the gospels are described by scientists. Lawrence Krauss described Islam as “no more stupid than any other religion” when in actual fact, science is more stupid than the religions they deride. So, the March did succeed.

>>personalities and tribal identities, hold views about climate change or vaccine safety or GMOs or evolution that conflict with what the evidence clearly says.

What about the thalidamide cases and the DDT debacle to quote a few examples. Scientists can’t be trusted with things that affect people’s lives but we have to trust somebody as long as we’re given the right to choose.
Let me give you a live example: one of our friends has 5 children. The first 2 had MMR vacines and their they’ve been diagnosed with autism. She pleaded with the health authorities against giving MMR to the other 3 children. They didn’t develop autism. We now have live experimental data that proves your evidence is faulty. You know that vaccines affect different people differently and you seemed to have got a small population for your tests and used it as a panacea for everyone else. That’s why people don’t trust experimental evidence. It seems that science, as well as politics, has been dehumanised.

>>The Dean of the Harvard Medical School: “The attack on science is a rift that signifies a dangerously widening chasm between critical thinking and rigid ideology.”

Really? Isn’t it because you treat the population as guinea pigs to experiment on? Then giving a lot of theories based on false evidence that work by sheer luck than design? You see, academics, as well as scientists and politicians, are out of touch with people they’re supposed to serve. I’m not against pure scientific research. But, as soon as it adversely affects the general population, I rally against it. Most scientific discoveries are commercialised and this is where conflicts of interest goes against the interest of the general population. Scientific evidence tend to favour commercial organisations at the expense of the consumers.

>>Bill Nye: “Somewhere along the way, there has developed this idea that if you believe something hard enough, it’s as true as things discovered through the process of science. And I will say that’s objectively wrong.”

You’re right to describe this statetement as smug because so-called scientific evidence depends heavily on definitions, postulates, assumptions, and sometimes vested interests. So, much of deep science is highly speculative and cannot represent the truth. As for the technological advances, we have the engineers to thank for it. I have to concede that some engineering does depend on science. But most of it is innovation of existing technologies. Some technologies is based on false science which means that something else is making it work.

>>Rich evidence from a wide range of research has made clear that the facts are just one input into a cognitive process whose job is far more profound than just objectively figuring things out.

I’m glad you made this point as it marks you as not taking sides. But the ‘facts’ you refer to, as supplied by science, is actually their beliefs of what they hold to be true; They’re not necessarily true. It seems that the only difference between scientific belief and religious belief is that science can be changed but religious doctrines can’t. I’ve tried to convince the scientific community that photons have mass and they continue to ignore me. I cited Einstein with his assertion that energy has mass that can warp spacetime. Their reply is “you’re no Einstein”.

Like what you read? Give Kasim Muflahi a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.